The scandal eh? Citizens arrested at the Capitol Riot were collecting donations from fellow Americans to pay for lawyers when USA Today swooped in to “expose” the travesty of it. Imagine the presumption of innocence and the right to “a fair trial”?
Once upon a time the second largest masthead in the US used to expose corruption in the great halls of power, but now they just attack private citizens. USA Today was wielding its influential power to cut off avenues for powerless people to raise enough money to afford better legal protection.
BLM rioters got donations direct from Kamala Harris and 13 Biden staffers, but Trump supporters are not even allowed to use Paypal or Venmo to get help from fellow Americans to cover their legal costs.
In the battle between the little guys and The Establishment Rulers, the legacy media is picking the side of Goliath, then asking us to be gentle on them.
Glenn Greenwald lobbed a sarcastic reply to the lead author:
…
And she and half the profession were so enraged they briefly set twitter on fire –saying she was “just an intern”, it was only her first story, and he was a mysogynistic bully.
Thus do the media bullies pull the Snowflake Defence:
Wow, what brave and intrepid journalistic work: speaking truth to power and standing up to major power centers by . . . working as little police officers for tech giants to prevent private citizens from being able to afford criminal lawyers. Clear the shelves for the imminent Pulitzer. Whatever you think about the Capitol riot, everyone has the right to a legal defense…
…increasingly, the largest corporate media platforms are used to punish ideological dissent and thought crimes by powerless, private citizens. They do not criticize or investigate real power centers, but serve them. And what makes it worse — so, so much worse — is that, as they assault, dox and harass private citizens, these journalistic bullies depict themselves as the real marginalized people, as those who are so fragile, voiceless, powerless, and vulnerable that criticizing them is tantamount to bullying, harassment, and violence.
Do you see what they are doing here? They are working to create a moral framework where it is always impermissible to criticize their journalism, no matter how shoddy, deceitful and amoral it is. They constantly concoct reasons why the journalist in question is too marginalized and too vulnerable to legitimately criticize.
Those who like monopoly-government like monopoly-media too:
In the next ten years, Australia will close a couple of coal plants, while Africa will build 1250.
Africa is going to double its energy and almost all the increase is coming from fossil fuels. This is hard to explain, given that renewables are “free” and Africa is poor. But at the end of the decade unreliable renewables will still make less than 10% of the energy in Africa.
A new study into Africa’s energy generation landscape uses a state-of-the-art machine-learning technique to analyse the pipeline of more than 2,500 planned power plants and their chances of successful commission.
African power generation, 2030, graph.
The study predicts that in 2030, fossil fuels will account for two-thirds of all generated electricity across Africa. While an additional 18% of generation is set to come from hydro-energy projects. These have their own challenges, such as being vulnerable to an increasing number of droughts caused by climate change.
This is only the start. Most countries in Africa are not even in the race yet:
South Africa alone is forecast to add almost 40% of Africa’s total predicted new solar capacity by 2030.
Five years ago TonyfromOz looked at Niger — a nation of 17 million people and estimated that the entire country used about as much electricity as Dubbo, Australia, a town with about 40,000 residents.
One Damon Gameau has a created a kind of fairy fantasyland movie of a cheesy-chirping renewable world called 2040 and it’s being played in our schools.
It taps into the primal longing for a simple pure fantasy world where all recycling is good, there is never any rubbish, nothing is wasted, and everyone wants to help. Sing Ye O Lordy for a Binary world of Good and Evil, (and maths that never uses bigger numbers than 0 and 1). A land of plenty, where children know all the answers, and no one ever has to do a cost-benefit analysis because there are no tradeoffs.
If you can say Carbon sequestration it can happen. Wave your glorious wand!
Our children are being taught to “save the world” by writing letters to politicians and creating their own advertising campaigns to convert even younger children to grow up to be little activists. Not for them the drudgery of earning a living, balancing books, or estimating risks. As Tony Thomas says “The lesson templates would do credit to Soviet-era indoctrination.”
Tony Thomas has watched the whole 90 minute brainwash spin, so you don’t have too. This has been out for two years, quietly winding it’s way through Australian schools. It comes with prepacked lesson plans fit to match a curriculum designed by Ms Julia Gillard (former PM). Perfect for harried teachers who can’t think of ways to weave sustainability into every second lesson.
I knew things were bad at schools, but not this bad…
This brought tears to my eyes. As someone who has grown up in a world where climate change is a fact and it seems little process has been made it’s really hard to see a hopeful future sometimes
I guess the suggestible minds trained to see disaster coming finally get some relief from the angst.
I see kids using landfill waste to generate more landfill waste. All it needs is tape, board and styrene…!
Get all the details at Quadrant:
Making Kids Shrill, Scared and Stupid
Tony Thomas, Quadrant
The premise of his film fantasy is that he time travels to 2040 and discovers that all his green solutions have been a brilliant success. He helps his real-life four-year-old daughter, Velvet, to navigate through climate perils to 2040’s nirvana. The movie closes with rapturous music and vision of youngsters of all colors and creeds dancing through a forest to celebrate low CO2 levels. One 20-something gal in a white frock grows from her shoulder-blades giant butterfly wings that actually flap. This must be the cheesiest movie clip ever made or even imaginable.[6] He doesn’t actually tell kids, “Vote Green”, but calls for strong new political leadership. “Wouldn’t it be terrific if new leaders emerge who could navigate us to a better 2040,” he says. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.
By time travelling into the future, the film can pretend that every green policy works. Make way for rainbows and unicorn stampedes! Its climate solutions include swapping steaks for seaweed and pulling down levels of evil CO2 to return the atmosphere to 350ppm CO2 (now 412ppm). That’s some feat.
Grow up to be a planet saviour!
Kids obviously will parrot that “the environment” is their future concern (notwithstanding that our air has never been purer and we’re putting out up to five colored bins weekly). Kids must then scrawl on their workpads answers to “What is one possible solution” and “Who is responsible for this solution and why?” Thus kids who have trouble solving 9×13=?, are coached to guide our planetary destinies. The 2040 “Factsheet”, by the way, finishes by telling kids to send letters to politicians and join the school-strike manipulators Youth Climate Coalition. They are also to run around ordering adults to cut their emissions. It’s the strangest “Factsheet” ever compiled by homo sapiens.
The poorest quarter in the UK have more information at their fingertips than King George did, but half the modern population have no idea what’s going on. In big bold terms of history, no other century saw so many lives saved, and deadly foes conquered. But most of the lucky recipients of the biggest bounty in a hundred thousand years aren’t just oblivious to the good news, they think things are getting worse.
Instead of drowning in floods they are drowning in junk headlines.
View this poll as a test of the media. If they told the truth — in perspective — the responses would cluster in a bell curve around the correct answer. Instead, a third of the population don’t know, and half the population know even less.
The GWPF has done a survey in the UK and discovered that less than 10% of the population even realize that the death toll from natural disasters is down at all, let alone by 95%. More than half the population can’t even guess the trend. And if these were “per capita” stats, the trend practically fell off a cliff. Since 1920 the global population has increased four-fold, but the death toll shrunk by a factor of twenty.
History and a connection to the real world is being wiped out. Great floods, fires and storms are being dropped down the memory-hole, while less deadly modern phenomenon fill up the news cycle.
The supreme auditors of Germany warned about the costs of Green energy a few years ago, but now they are paying attention to energy security too, and with sudden alarm they’ve announced that Green energy poses “an existential threat” to Germany.
It’s something dumb bloggers have been saying for years. But this is good news that German bureaucratic numerical masters are on to it.
So explosive is the German Government Audit report that Die Welt and the government auditors see the Energiewende as a “danger for all of Germany”.
Daniel Wetzel at German national daily Die Welt reports on the latest German Federal Court of Auditors’ warning: “If things continue like this, Germany as a business location is in danger. The costs are out of control – and there is a growing threat of an electricity shortfall.”
The Bundesrechnungshof in Germany or Federal Audit Office sounds rather awesome — legislators can’t tell it what to do, and its exact position in the layers of power is disputed, which only makes it sound more significant.*
The Federal Audit Office sees the danger that the energy transition in this form will endanger Germany as a business location and overwhelm the financial strength of electricity-consuming companies and private households. This can ultimately jeopardise social acceptance of the energy transition.”
No one will want to do business in Germany, everyone will be poor, and they worry about the social acceptance of wind plants?
“Ever higher electricity prices” are also to be feared in the current system. The Federal Court of Auditors quoted from a study according to which an additional 525 billion euros would have to be raised for the power supply including the network expansion in the years 2020 to 2025. Electricity prices for private households are already 43 percent above the European average.
The Auditors say the government has too many rosy assumptions and they underestimate the need for more reserve power.
According to Federal Audit Office data, the Energiewende has cost around 34 billion euros in 2017 alone. In addition to the federal government’s expenditure of almost 8 billion euros, this also includes the burdens on end consumers, in particular due to the renewable energy levy (EEG). “The Federal Government, incidentally, does not have an overall grasp of the costs or any transparency in this respect.”
The wastage of resources to implement the Energiewende was “unprecedented”…
Is there a process other countries can use?
Will government audit offices do the due diligence that the politicians, media and academics won’t?
And so the mask comes off. After forty years of cheating in a “forced technology transfer” the game is up. Trump called China for the theft of intellectual property, then launched a trade war, but the CCP already had stolen much of the information it needed.
This is not just an economic war, this is a big wet blanket on some kinds of scientific research. With one big bad player in the game breaking the rules, there is less incentive for people to announce and share discoveries. Royalties can’t be enforced, and a competitor might copy and compete against you. Are we entering a new era cold war of secrecy?
Back to Zang: Now that there is no need to hide the theft, nor pander in the hope of taking more, another Chinese Professor openly bragged about the situation last week:
For the past 40 years, the Chinese regime only did one thing: plagiarize, Zang Qichao, a prominent marketing expert and visiting professor of Beijing’s Tsinghua University, told a group of Chinese entrepreneurs recently.
“What intellectual property rights? What patented technology? We’ll get it first and deal with it later.”
Through this approach, China has skyrocketed to become one of the world’s leading economies, and now finds that there’s nothing left to replicate, Zang said.
For years, the CCP told businesses they would get access to the vast Chinese market if they worked with local firms. This arrangement meant Chinese staff soon learnt how everything worked, then gradually replaced the foreigners.
“When we look back, the factories are ours, the equipment is ours, the technology is ours, the patents are ours,” Zang said. “The foreigners have all gone.”
Imagine a Westerner anywhere proudly saying “the foreigners have all gone?”
Feel the hostility — the complete lack of respect or shred of any gratitude.
Where are the squad of progressive Sino activists lecturing Zang for his racist hate? The CCP plagiarized many things, but they didn’t copy that.
The West hoped China would develop like Japan. The good people of China probably hoped that too.
The more Woke the West gets, the more it sleeps at the wheel.
A new program promoted by the Oregon Department of Education is designed to “dismantle” instances of “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom.”
Calling all victims! (And if you aren’t one now, you will be soon.)
“White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the guide states. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”
From the headline, this new “maths” has all the racist underpinnings of a gloriously oppressive education — one that tells students that maths is really a “white” thing. It’s implicit in the mission statement that those with a colored complexion probably won’t be good at maths and furthermore, that they can blame white supremacists for that. It’s almost like someone was working to make it harder for black mathematicans to believe in themselves, and white mathematicians too. For starters, it has people thinking about their skin color and not the numbers.
…
Lordy! Imagine having to show your work?
Examples of “white supremacy culture” cited by the document include a focus on “getting the ‘right’ answer” and requiring students to show their work.
It is as bad as you thought.
The authors of the program state that “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so. Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.”
Whatever you do, don’t perpetuate objectivity.
The document is truly a powerhouse of hate:
…
How many young impressionable student teachers would come out of this training feeling more empowered, more able, and more enthusiastic about teaching maths?
White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions. Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on Black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.The table below identifies the ways in which white supremacy shows up in math classrooms.
Have you harmed anyone today by talking about maths?
Ethically-sourced food, clothing, coffee and even magical healing crystals are a big draw to concerned green types, who profess to worry deeply about the origin of anything they buy.
Indeed. Awkward news came out last month that “Nearly every solar power panel sold in the European Union has its origins in China’s oppressed Xinjiang region.”
Panels include components produced in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, where there are concerns about forced labor camps for Muslim minorities, including Uighurs.
The solar industry and Brussels lawmakers argue Europe’s renewable energy push should not come at a human cost amid long-standing international concern over reports China has detained 1 million people with Muslim backgrounds in camps in Xinjiang and is putting them to work.
Solar power uses slaves from every side
Eastern slaves make the panels, and western slaves pay to subsidize other people’s solar panels.
If only solar power was competitive — we could afford to pay real workers in real factories, and say No thanks to subsidies — and still get cheap electricity at the end of it.
Paul Homewood points out that the top ten solar panel makers are corporations in China, China, China, Canada, China, China, China, US, Germany and Taiwan. Even Canadian manufacturing relies on plants in Asia or Latin America and Panasonic has abandoned it’s solar factories in Malaysia and Japan. Who can compete with forced labor?
Naturally, potential solar panel manufacturers in Europe would like to see punitive tariffs, but this would drastically impact on costs, destroying the idea that solar power is competitive.
My guess is that, despite protests from MEPs, little will change, and a blind eye will be turned just as with the new Russian gas pipeline to Germany. And all for what? Solar power in the EU only accounts for 1.8% of primary energy consumption.
What kind of free speech is always and only “respectful”? Whatever the VC wants.
Peter Ridd has pointed out that Sydney Uni is trying to weasel its way around the new Freedom of Speech bill by declaring its undying support for free speech as long as it is respectful. So you can say anything you like as long as you don’t offend the VC. If an academic spots potential fraud, malpractice or corruption, they’ll have to find an inoffensive way to say it. How do you say “incompetent crook” politely?
This is a university which nurtured a play called “Kill Climate Deniers”. Sydney Uni has no respect for at least half of the tax payers who fund it. So I say fine, as long as Sydney Uni has the power to sack people that offend it, let the taxpayers have the right to sack Sydney University.
Until then, free speech is free speech. The strategy of using vague, indeterminate language like “respect” is straight out of the communist party playbook — keep ’em guessing and they shalt censor themselves.
All universities that don’t know what “Free Speech” is should henceforth raise their funding direct from the people who are willing to pay for Autocratic, Politically Correct Research. All the rest of us want real research.
Tucker Carlson: Late-night Comedy died during Trump’s Presidency.
Adam Carolla:
” You know they’ve got to everybody when they’ve got to comedians. Think about that, Professors, cops and politicans — they caved. Now the fact that comedians have caved means everyone is scared of the Woke Mob. “
UPDATE: Youtubes gone, so Bitchute whole Episode here. Mark Steyn does some parody at 11 mins. The discussion of the Death of Comedy starts at 27 mins. 25 March 2021
But comedy is not complete dead on late night cable: check Mark Steyn — especially on the fawning slavish American Media:
Biden said we have to raise every road 3 feet because of climate change, … and they took that, these people, the Court Enuchs went along with it…
Mark Steyn on Joe Biden declaring he might run for another term:
… I have no idea who the government of the United States is, but if the Deep State can get away with this, they can get away with anything.
The Deep State are saying, if we can pull this off, we don’t need anyone in the Oval Office.
Review of “Killer Cartoons,” edited by David Wallis, and “White,” by Bret Easton Ellis
Humor is dying all over, for obvious reasons. All comedy is subversive and authoritarianism is the fashion. Comics exist to keep us from taking ourselves too seriously, and we live in an age when people believe they have a constitutional right to be taken seriously, even if — especially if — they’re idiots, repeating thoughts they only just heard for the first time minutes ago. Because humor deflates stupid ideas, humorists are denounced in all cultures that worship stupid ideas, like Spain under the Inquisition, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or today’s United States.
A lot of the anti-Trump cartoons were neither all that creative nor funny — if “He’s gay and has a little dick!” is the best you can do with that politician, you probably need a new line of work …
The latest academic voodoo doll tossed at Fossil Fuels is a study claiming that the industry gets $65 billion in “implicit” subsidies in the US.
The authors of the latest paper assume the broken climate models work, and then guesstimate what the cost of all that theoretical warming would be with economic models that aren’t much better. It’s a paywalled paper, but they don’t appear to account for all the net benefits of coal, oil and gas which include, keeping people alive and fertilizing forests and fields around the world for free. These aren’t guesstimates from the future but known good and great gifts from the last century or two.
Cold weather kills 20 times more people than heat. If Kotchen can assume CO2 causes warming (despite the lack of evidence for that), it follows then that it must have saved countless lives. How many more senior citizens would die prematurely if they are forced to pay more for electricity and thus can’t afford to turn the heater on in winter? In the UK alone, in one winter there were at least 20,000 more deaths. All over the world, people die more in cooler weather, even in hot Brisbane.
Fossil fuels makes farmers richer, food more affordable, keeps people warm, greens the planet, employs thousands, pays taxes, saves forests from being razed for Drax, moves nearly everything that needs to move, and creates more flowers.
In a fair world, Yale should give back all government funding until it raises its standards and stops producing politically biased, incompetent studies.
There are real and substantial financial implications to fossil fuel producers of policies that seek to correct market failures brought about by climate change, adverse health effects from local pollution, and inefficient transportation. The producer benefits of the existing policy regime in the United States are estimated at $62 billion annually during normal economic conditions. This translates into large amounts for individual companies due to the relatively small number of fossil fuel producers. This paper provides company-specific estimates, and these numbers clarify why many in the fossil fuel industry oppose more efficient regulatory reform; they may also shape the way policymakers view the prospects for additional subsidies going forward.
“The financial benefit because of unpriced costs borne by society is comparable to 18% of net income from continuing domestic operations for the median natural gas and oil producer in 2017–2018, and it exceeds net income for the majority of coal producers. “
And yet the companies themselves don’t even try to defend what they do? Why?
Kotchen notes that he contacted all of the companies included in his study and found that none of them had anything to say about implicit subsidies.
The purpose of the hot air balloon adding two whole kilograms of chalk to the atmosphere is a glorious multipurpose marketing exercise. It might as well be a skywriting advert.
Building a sunshade for the whole planet radiates cinematic desperation — it’s advertising the terror of climate change — Really, we need to do that? It’ll get everyone talking about climate change for another five minutes, as if it mattered. But make no mistake, it’s such an ambitious Manhattan-scale idea, it’s advertising Bill Gates the billionaire, too. This is meant to raise his global cachet too. Super-Bill to the rescue. Is he God?
But it’s also advertising other things, like how stupid the climate models are, how fake the pious planetary-care is, and how daft the whole UN-herd is.
Bill Gates plans to launch a bag of chalk into the stratosphere and somehow get useful data out of it about whether we could build an Earthly sunshade to cool ourselves on the same scale as a super volcano. ( To that end, if it looked like he might succeed, watch the Paris agreement dissolve a nanosecond after someone starts to get serious about shading one nation and not some other one.)
Lordy! Imagine the disaster if the planet cooled, and the Green movement got what it wanted without the hair shirts? What really matters to them, reducing CO2 or getting people to stop driving and clogging up their roads?
Indeed, not having to bankrupt all the fossil fuel corporations? I mean really!?
It’s worse than that– the Deplorables would get hooked on pumping up the white skies, addicted to chalk to cover up for all their sins!
‘It would cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation but once you’re on to that, it’s like taking heroin — you’ve got to carry on doing the drug to keep on having the effect,’ he said.
He explained that without tackling pollution first we would have to keep lifting more and more dust into the stratosphere, which would change the daytime sky to white and if it ever stopped there would be a rise in global temperatures again.
Recklessly fiddling with the climate to save us from reckless fiddling.
Apparently the same models that have all the answers now, are pretty useless at predicting what happens when one aerosol changes.
Climatologists are also concerned that such tinkering could unintentionally disrupt the circulation of ocean currents that regulate our weather.
This itself could unleash a global outbreak of extreme climatic events that might devastate farmland, wipe out entire species and foster disease epidemics.
Which begs the question — some models are happy to say exactly what will happen if we reduce CO2, but those same models apparently don’t work at all on aerosols.
Scientists may be able to set the perfect climatic conditions for farmers in America’s vast Midwest, but at the same time this setting might wreak drought havoc across Africa.
For it is not possible to change the temperature in one part of the world and not disturb the rest. Everything in the world’s climate is interconnected.
Furthermore, any change in global average temperature would in turn change the way in which heat is distributed around the globe, with some places warming more than others.
This, in turn, would affect rain levels. Heat drives the water cycle — in which water evaporates, forms clouds and drops as rain. Any heat alteration would cause an accompanying shift in rainfall patterns. But how and where exactly?
There is no way of predicting how the world’s long-term weather may respond to having a gigantic chemical sunshade plonked on top of it.
No way of predicting long term weather indeed. Someone tell the modelers.
Imagine if the world was going to cool in the next 50 years but all the models said it was warming so geniuses put up a sunscreen and made the cooling worse?
What if a Krakatoa goes off the week after the dust is released?
Someone will have to design a nuclear-powered flying vacuum-cleaner before the next ice age hits.
So the worlds car manufacturers are lining up: The Volkswagon group and GM are going “full electric” — so they say. Ford Motor Co claims its line-up in Europe will be fully electric by 2030, while Tata Motors unit Jaguar Land Rover said its luxury Jaguar brand will be entirely electric by 2025.
But Toyota and Honda are not.
At least investors (and consumers) have a choice. Presumably , the US Democrats will want to change that.
When Toyota offers an opinion on the car market, it’s probably worth listening to. This week, Toyota reiterated an opinion it has offered before. That opinion is straightforward: The world is not yet ready to support a fully electric auto fleet.
Toyota’s head of energy and environmental research Robert Wimmer testified before the Senate this week, and said: “If we are to make dramatic progress in electrification, it will require overcoming tremendous challenges, including refueling infrastructure, battery availability, consumer acceptance, and affordability.”
Of those, “Consumer Acceptance” is the easiest thing to change (especially with a law and the right amount of jail time).
Toyota warns that the grid and infrastructure simply aren’t there to support the electrification of the private car fleet. A 2017 U.S. government study found that we would need about 8,500 strategically-placed charge stations to support a fleet of just 7 million electric cars. That’s about six times the current number of electric cars but no one is talking about supporting just 7 million cars. We should be talking about powering about 300 million within the next 20 years, if all manufacturers follow GM and stop making ICE cars.
The scale of the switch hasn’t even been introduced into the conversation in any systematic way yet. According to FinancesOnline, there are 289.5 million cars just on U.S. roads as of 2021. About 98 percent of them are gas-powered. Toyota’s RAV4 took the top spot for purchases in the U.S. market in 2019, with Honda’s CR-V in second. GM’s top seller, the Chevy Equinox, comes in at #4 behind the Nissan Rogue. This is in the U.S. market, mind. GM only has one entry in the top 15 in the U.S. Toyota and Honda dominate, with a handful each in the top 15.
California and Texas don’t have grids big enough to deal with houses…
Bjorn Lomborg was going to present some economic pointers to Duke University last week, but even UN approved estimates were too high-risk for Duke . Evidently the students are so poorly trained they couldn’t be trusted around a different point of view. Lomborg might seed all kinds of wicked ideas about them doing their own research. Though, more likely, it had nothing to do with the students. The real problem with Lomborg was that he threatened their branding. What if Duke lost some big lefty donors? (Or the biggest donor of all, Big Government?)
Lomborg shows how fragile the UN-Wall of Science is
All he aimed to do was to join together two separate UN economic factoids, but he had to be axed. He even agrees “climate change is a problem”. But agreeing on the science is not enough.
One of my [axed] presentation points was highlighting the latest full UN Climate Panel report which estimates the total cost of climate change. They found that unmitigated climate change in half a century will reduce general welfare equivalent to lowering each person’s income by between 0.2 and 2 per cent. Given that the UN expects each person on the planet to be much better off – 363 per cent as wealthy as today – climate might cause us to only be 356 per cent as rich by then. That is a problem, but certainly not the end of the world.
Except it’s not a problem, just an error bar. With blind economic models piled on broken climate models, fifty years from now the world might well be cooler, and poorer too.
But Lomborg’s point is still potent. The UN are complete hypocrites and troughers.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Austin Rood